Re: [open-cobol-list] Returning clause in procedure division

[David Essex]

Bill Klein wrote:

> David Essex wrote:
>>
>> While the RETURNING clause is allowed in the CALL statement,
>> it seams to be missing from the 'PROCEDURE DIVISION'.
>> Doesn't the COBOL 2002 standard define the following ?
>>
>> CALL [ using-phrase ] [ RETURNING data-name-2 ]
>> PROCEDURE DIVISION [ using-phrase ] [ RETURNING data-name-2 ] ...
>
> What the '02 Standard defines (having RETURNING in the Procedure Division
> header) was a relatively late enhancement and was NOT something in any of
> the (many) compilers that had the "returning" concept (and allowed it in a
> CALL statement) - when the '02 Standard was approved.

According to an old I*M COBOL-85 language reference, both the 'CALL ... 
returning' and 'Procedure Division ... returning' are defined as an 
extension to the standard.

> It certainly SHOULD be allowed there by any compiler conforming to the '02
> Standard, but it is NOT needed for any compiler that is simply trying to
> "match" the common extension to the '85 Standard. 

The 'CALL ... returning' clause, even with limited return types,
facilitates interaction with other languages, in particular 'C'.

The 'Procedure Division ... returning' clause provides a better and more 
consistent approach used by (most) modern languages.
it is certainly a better approach than using an implicit variable, such 
as 'RETURN-CODE'. Which, by the way, is also a common extension to the 
COBOL-85 standard.

The COBOL-2002 standard defines a very much enhanced 'RETURNING' clause. 
It's full implementation in OC would require a substantial amount of work.
Implementing the 'Procedure Division ... returning' clause, even as a 
COBOL-85 extension, should only require a fraction the amount of work.